Schlippery schlope

Haha, of course I don't.

1. If you believe in smoking bans, I respect your opinion. I understand that you are motivated by a desire to improve health and save lives. I wouldn't dare think of sending armed men in uniforms to initiate violence against you for holding this opinion. Yet advocacy for smoking bans does not afford me and my own opinion the same respect, for it advocates sending armed men in uniform to initiate violence against those who live by a belief system that smoking should be allowed on private property. That's what the law is - violence. Violence is the most in-your-face form of oppression that has ever existed, and lies at the bottom of all other forms of oppression. What's the standard for using violence?

The initiation of violence, one might argue, is justified in some circumstances. For the sake of argument, I'll take such an assumption for granted. Now, then, is the smoking of tobacco on private property - or allowing others to smoke tobacco on your property - the sort of anti-social, immoral, or otherwise frowned-upon behavior that justifies the use of violence? Does that behavior fall into that (hopefully) narrow category? Have we exhausted all other less oppressive methods of altering the behavior? Do we want violence to play an increased role in regulating social conduct, or a decreased role? Do we want more things that people can be arrested for, or less? Most importantly, do we want this power of violence to be vested in an increasingly powerful and historically destructive monopoly to the exclusion of all other people? I would argue that rarely, if ever, are these serious moral questions considered in the context of proposed social or economic regulation. We already have a smoking ban. It's the disastrous, immoral, and counterproductive War on Drugs(tm). Smoking bans are effectively extensions of the War on Drugs(tm).

2. Slippery slope is not always a fallacious argument, and it certainly isn't the last refuge of people who have no arguments. If the government has a strong history of incremental expansion of power far beyond what was at stake at the time of original expansion, it is rational to conclude that further expansion may likely lead to the same result. The expansion of executive power in the federal government, for example, has been steadily increasing for decades. Income taxes were supposed to be very small, affect only the very rich, and only be needed in times of war. Income tax withholding is also a temporary wartime measure from the 1940s. Bill Clinton's miniature Patriot Act was followed up by Bush's Patriot Act, and the cycle continues. There's every reason to be concerned that precedents set by incremental increases in government authority will later justify further government intrusion, especially when precedent plays such an important role in the legal system as well as public opinion (e.g. conditioning people to accept the developing police state).

3. That video isn't as much of a slippery slope argument (in the sense that smaller government would lead to no government, which may independently be a valid 'concern') but is rather a misleading portrayal of that eventual result as undesirable. Arguing that shrinking government could or would lead to anarchy is one thing; arguing that anarchy would necessarily be undesirable or that Somalia is an undesirable place to live because it has no government (rather than because it is a part of post-colonial, third-world Africa) is something entirely different and much less sound in my opinion.

4. Somalia is an interesting place. This is already a long post, but I'm about to make it a lot longer because this is an area of interest to me and there are a lot of people who really don't know what they are talking about when they trash Somalia as "anarchy in action". Most of the people who use 'lol somalia' as an attack on libertarianism are really just attacking those of us who believe that the state should ideally be abolished altogether (me).

Somalia is actually better off now (based on the vast majority of metrics for standard of living) than it was under a central government up until the early 90s. Lots of the conflict in Somalia has been due to attempts by western powers and neighboring governments to install a central government in Somalia over the past ~10 years. Perhaps the only the Islamic Courts Union is a true government-like entity to spring up 'spontaneously', and it of course is just a network of courts that use Islamic law to resolve conflicts. They are armed primarily to fight off Ethiopian military adventures in their land.

Sure, it's still Somalia. It's a third-world, African nation. In some areas, especially Mogadishu, there are vestiges of a state (armed militias, warlords controlling sectors of the city). But if you watch videos of people visiting Somalia, you will see that it is a relatively well-functioning society. White westerners certainly need to hire bodyguards to protect them while they visit (relatively cheap), but I've seen plenty of videos of market places, cell phone towers, and make-shift ports (most of the infrastructure has been destroyed by various governments, or wanna-be governments). The point is - people can survive without a central state. In fact, they can have a reasonably safe and plentiful society (by African standards). They are better off now than before they had a government. Their biggest challenge is dealing with attempts by other countries to impose a central government and the US's attempts to brand them a "terrorist" state. It's not chaos over there. It's only chaos when someone tries to create a government, and people resist. Out in the countryside it is fairly peaceful and people live by their own customary tribal law that has been studied extensively and is quite interesting. People use social insurance via family ties and tribal relationships to resolve disputes, provide protection, and other services (that otherwise might be half-heartedly provided by a central state run by some IMF-controlled despot), but are free to come and go as they please and are pretty much free to do as they please.

It's funny that some 'leftists' would make fun of Somalia when they themselves go on and on about the horrific after-effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism, yet want to blame Somalia's problems on the lack of western-imposed government and ignore the problems caused by the west's attempts to install a central government there! I'd rather live in Somalia than a lot of other countries in Africa, and to make fun of Somalia as an example of a stateless society (which it isn't truly) is to claim that all governments are like the North Korean government. I'd rather live in Somalia, or a stateless society, than North Korea any day of the week (if you ever feel sorry for yourself, read this: "They say the wonderful taste of a raw rat is unforgettable"). To the extent that there are problems other than underdevelopment in Somalia, they are caused by government - both internal and external. To blame Somalia's problems on a lack of government is like saying that Somalia needs more warlords and military intrusion by foreigners. Anyone with an ounce of compassion for the Somali people would not advocate either of those options.

If we agree secondhand smoke is so dangerous, shouldn't we ban it in homes where children live before we ban it in places where consenting adults work? After all, adults can quit their jobs if the jobs are unhealthy, but children can't quit their families.

The point is - people can survive without a central state. In fact, they can have a reasonably safe and plentiful society (by African standards). They are better off now than before they had a government.

I've been there, Doc. And I didn't spend nearly as much time "touristing" as I would have liked. For almost 3 weeks I lived with a family in a small village. The government couldn't afford barracks for some units, so they recruited locally and the soldiers "commuted" to work via hitchhiking or (more often) walking. Every morning, the two little kids who shared their 1-room shack and food with me would wake me up just so I would chase/catch/tickle them before their father and I walked to work.

A few years later, during the civil war, every single man, woman, child, dog, cat, pig and chicken in that village was slaughtered because that unit didn't bow to a warlord's demands quick enough. So you'll excuse me if I don't embrace the idea of a "stateless" Somalia.

Quote of the week today during the debate on this. We bring you the video.

in this excellent diary at Kos. To preview, this particular slippery slope takes you to bestiality and incest! Sure hope the Family bigots are reading this, which they should have done before writing this.